There is a weird collection of arguments for appraising the value of humans and their creative artifacts. It usually goes something like this: In the age of AI, we should still prefer humans in certain roles because AI could never perform the tasks required for that role. Or, a human can at least do it better. Or, perhaps the output from a human and AI may look similar, but human output is preferable for subtle stylistic reasons that an AI cannot reproduce. Or, at least the AI cannot reproduce it consistently. Observe the scuff marks around the base of the goalpost from constant movement. Allow 28 days for the concrete to cure.
  • adhocfungus@midwest.socialEnglish
    5·
    28 days ago

    “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.”

    This would solve so many problems with my manager. He has Copilot write his emails from prompts, and is frequently sending clarifications because nobody could tell what exactly he was trying to say.

    Meanwhile my emails are so short he has told me I should be using AI to make them sound friendlier. Yet nobody ever needs clarification from me because I put only the exact words needed to convey my intent.